Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Couples dubbed 'Party A, Party B'

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Monday, June 9, 2008 10:00 pm

For people getting married after this week, you won't be legally considered either the bride or groom. Instead, new couples will be comprised of "Party A" and "Party B."

That's a byproduct of the California Supreme Court's decision May 15 that legalized same-sex marriage, which takes effect at 5 p.m. June 16. The Supreme Court is mandating all 58 counties in California to issue licenses for same-sex marriages.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 20 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 20 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription at this time and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 209-369-2761. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

110 comments:

  • posted at 9:28 am on Tue, Jun 17, 2008.

    Posts:

    Genesis 2:24 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."God created marriage in this way, one man and one woman. Just going by what the Bible says. I wouldn't call that ignorance or prejudice, it would correctly be called obedience.

     
  • posted at 8:28 am on Tue, Jun 17, 2008.

    Posts:

    Another Bible literalist? Well then, no use wasting your time with science and reason.

     
  • posted at 8:15 am on Tue, Jun 17, 2008.

    Posts:

    Genesis 2:24 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."God created marriage in this way, one man and one woman. Just going by what the Bible says. I wouldn't call that ignorance or prejudice, it would correctly be called obedience.

     
  • posted at 8:01 am on Tue, Jun 17, 2008.

    Posts:

    Audi, where did you get the notion that sexual orientation was a choice? Perhaps this prejudicial bit of ignorance is what angers people.

     
  • posted at 7:37 am on Tue, Jun 17, 2008.

    Posts:

    Fairiestitches also wrote, 'Many people need to be reminded this is not a religious debate. It is a polititcal debate. Also, has the November ballot even been officially approved yet? No. It has not.'For 'you' this is only a political debate; for others it is obviously more than that. I suggest that you let those who wish to debate the issue on these grounds do so and ignore those who offend you.The only thing holding up the approval of the constitutional amendment for November's election is the verification from the California Secretary of State. Evidently, the amendment has already received over a million signatures. It will be on the ballot unless there is some way to determine before hand that such an amendment would violate the U.S. Constitution.

     
  • posted at 6:31 am on Tue, Jun 17, 2008.

    Posts:

    Farie: You can now marry your Party A or Party B, as the case may be, yet you are so filled with anger. What is missing or unresolved in your life? Perhaps your lifestyle choice, deep down inside, is gnawing at your conscience.

     
  • posted at 6:26 am on Tue, Jun 17, 2008.

    Posts:

    Fairiestitches also wrote, 'Many people need to be reminded this is not a religious debate. It is a polititcal debate. Also, has the November ballot even been officially approved yet? No. It has not.'For 'you' this is only a political debate; for others it is obviously more than that. I suggest that you let those who wish to debate the issue on these grounds do so and ignore those who offend you.The only thing holding up the approval of the constitutional amendment for November's election is the verification from the California Secretary of State. Evidently, the amendment has already received over a million signatures. It will be on the ballot unless there is some way to determine before hand that such an amendment would violate the U.S. Constitution.

     
  • posted at 6:18 am on Tue, Jun 17, 2008.

    Posts:

    Fairiestitches - I don't think any reasonable person is trying to 'quiet' you at all. Sure, you have the absolute right to voice your opinion here and anywhere else for that matter. My suggestion that you should celebrate this victory was in no way intended to shut you down; it was only to remind you that you have indeed won! And while there may be a problem come November and you are most likely gearing up for that campaign, I only meant to suggest that you enjoy what is nothing less than a clear win for you and other gay couples in California who wish to marry. It has been opined that no matter what happens in November, all of the marriages performed between now and then will be legal after that election.However, it is disingenuous of you to state, '[s]crew you and your decency and decorum crap!' to another who is voicing his/her own opinion. Are you not trying to 'quiet' another? It is this type of hypocrisy that fuels the flames of anger and hatred.

     
  • posted at 6:08 am on Tue, Jun 17, 2008.

    Posts:

    Fairiestitches wrote, 'However, on a side not they can also state that your chosen lifestyle is a hinderance and a common issue between the people they assist. I am most certin that it was my homosexuality.'If anyone stated what you wrote above during your exit interview from a job that you left involuntarily, then you most certainly do have a cause of action against your former employer. You need to visit a lawyer.

     
  • posted at 5:34 am on Tue, Jun 17, 2008.

    Posts:

    Also all of you that are trying to quiet me, by telling me to go out and celebrate and stop blogging, dont be ridiculous, I have and I am celebrating. Also, you cannot quiet me. As all of you have your opinions, so do I. And it is my right to blog about my opinion on the issue as well. Many people need to be reminded this is not a religious debate. It is a polititcal debate. Also, has the November ballot even been officially approved yet? No. It has not.

     
  • posted at 5:27 am on Tue, Jun 17, 2008.

    Posts:

    Audi 5000 - " Fairie: Are you sure that's why you got fired from your job, because you are pursuing a homosexual lifestyle? There are laws against that and you'd be one rich Party A (or are you Party B?). Guess what, whether you want or need to know, I was simply giving examples to support facts in my writing. It is a very important aspect to writing. Have you not attended college? As far as employment laws in this state - this state is very simply a free wills state. They can fire you without specifically giving you a reason! However, on a side not they can also state that your chosen lifestyle is a hinderance and a common issue between the people they assist. I am most certin that it was my homosexuality.

     
  • posted at 4:31 pm on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    Metric Time System wrote, 'Girard: It would be the easy way out, to claim the Bible is too difficult or impossible to understand.'Please try and read the words that are written. I did not state that The Bible is too difficult or impossible to 'understand.' I stated that the different versions of The Bible make it impossible to 'adequately create the foundation for reasonable discussion or debate.' This has been true through the ages.

     
  • posted at 3:52 pm on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    That's funny Jess!Where would we be without a sense of humor? On the far right I assume.

     
  • posted at 2:02 pm on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."No adulterers, liars, gold or mercede lovers, thieves (realtors, lawyers, and politicians), and drunks??? Geez, metric, you just kicked 90% of Lodi out of heaven. LOL.

     
  • posted at 8:40 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    Metric Time System wrote, 'Girard: It would be the easy way out, to claim the Bible is too difficult or impossible to understand.'Please try and read the words that are written. I did not state that The Bible is too difficult or impossible to 'understand.' I stated that the different versions of The Bible make it impossible to 'adequately create the foundation for reasonable discussion or debate.' This has been true through the ages.

     
  • posted at 8:21 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    Girard: It would be the easy way out, to claim the Bible is too difficult or impossible to understand. The truth is the Bible has been and will continue to be the clear word of God. Our God is powerful enough to preserve His Word to us throughout time. The meaning has never changed even though the grammar has been updated from time to time. The message is the same.

     
  • posted at 8:09 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    What? Audi 5000 not desiring to know about others' sex lives is hateful? Audi simply stated an opinion with relatively little emotion at all. In fact, he/she advanced a legal position toward Fairiestitches to consider if she/he had in fact been fired for being homosexual. Where's the hate?

     
  • posted at 7:42 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    well girard looks like audi has pretty well summed up your lame excuse about hate having nothing to do with the argument against homosexuality and same sex marriage. That's why this world sucks.

     
  • posted at 7:37 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    Metric Time System - to be fair, because of the various versions of The Bible, the word 'homosexual' does not always appear. In fact I was taught years ago that where 'homosexual' pops up in this particular verse of I Corinthians, 'effeminate' was the original interpretation. These disparate readings of The Bible often make it difficult (if not impossible) to adequately create the foundation for reasonable discussion or debate.

     
  • posted at 7:26 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    papercut: That is what the Bible says, there's no personal interpretation. I Cor. 6:9-10, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."That is not vague or not understandable. It's clear, but some clearly don't like what it says.You may not like God's rules but who are any of us to question God. Are you saying God is wrong?

     
  • posted at 7:22 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    metric, just where do you see homosexual in Corinthians6: 9& 10? Please enlighten me. You're not looking at the Quran are you?

     
  • posted at 7:18 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    Fairie: Are you sure that's why you got fired from your job, because you are pursuing a homosexual lifestyle? There are laws against that and you'd be one rich Party A (or are you Party B?). Wait, I don't want or need to know, just as no one else wants to know, so keep your private life to yourself, like anyone else with an ounce of decency and decorum.

     
  • posted at 7:18 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    metric, that's only in your personal interpretation.

     
  • posted at 7:02 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    I Corinthians 6:9-10.

     
  • posted at 7:00 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    fairiestitches: Do not be deceived, you are not well educated in Christianity or else would understand the Biblical position of homosexuality. It's obvious you disagree with what the Bible clearly says, but don't try to pretend The Bible does not address the sin of homosexuality, it does. I Corinthians 6:9 talks about making life choices, and explicitly says those choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle will not inherit the kingdom of God. Very clear. You can believe it or not, but there it is. God's word say no to that behavior.

     
  • posted at 6:56 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    Well, I'm not you fairiestitches, but if I were I would be simply ignoring those who oppose same-sex marriage. Starting at 5:01 p.m. today marriages between any two human beings who wish to tie the knot in California are legal. Celebrate it! Embrace it! But you cannot expect those who oppose it to celebrate or embrace it. Those who would cause harm or threaten anyone should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There is never any justification for physically harming anyone in furtherance of an opinion.

     
  • posted at 6:49 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    Fairiestitches, 'right' or 'wrong' is very often in the eye, mind, and/or heart of the beholder. Surely there are many who believe abortion to be 'wrong,' but have been forced to bend to the will of the people as well as the Supreme Court that ruled that the killing of an unborn human being falls within the right of a woman to determine what happens with her own body. Yet the Constitution protects those who oppose this 'legal' procedure to protest and voice their opinion as well as to do whatever is legal to overturn Roe v. Wade. Likewise with same-sex marriage, it has nothing to do with 'hate,' but rests with the concept that each of us is entitled to determine what we believe to be 'right' or 'wrong.'From what I've read here and elsewhere regarding same-sex marriage, those who have actually 'won' this battle (the war is not yet determined) are fueled by fear of those who simply don't agree with them. Why arent those who prevailed celebrating instead of cowering in fear?

     
  • posted at 6:33 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    WHo in the world is cowering in fear? are we worried that our coimmunity will suddenly turn against us and rip marriage out of our grasps as soon we have finally obtained it again? of course we are. Are we worried that our fellow prejudice citizens will turn against us and take it inot their own hands to injur us as they have in the past? Of course we are. SO many of my freinds who follow the same lifestyle path have been injured, and hurt whether emotionally or even physically because of who they love. i myself have battled prejudice wiht my own family, I have been fired from a job as soon as they found out that I was domestically partnered! True prejudice is not just a blog in some silly newspaper. It is alive and thriving. BUt, I am not and neither is anyone I know cowering in fear but rather holding our head high and fighting for what we believe if we were cowering in fear we would not have overturned the unjust and unconstitutional law that was put in. Rather, we would have rolled over complained about the lack of justice and not fought back.

     
  • posted at 6:24 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    According to the American Heritage dictionary the definition of sexism is:1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women. 2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender. Defining the marriage as specifically between a man and a woman is sexist and based on gender profiling which is a form of prejudice in and of itself.Isn't it funny how Spain was a main contributor in beginning the intolerance of gays and yet they were one of the first to fully harmonize the acceptance of gay marriage in their country? Obviously they saw the error in their ways. As the younger generation takes control of our country - the prejudism, sexism, and closeminded ways of the older generation will fall away and allow for broader growth and new age ideals, such as they have for centuries in the past and will continue to do so in the future. The intolerance of homosexuality and gay marriage in this country is simply one last faulty attempt for our elders to try and control liberal expansion in our country.

     
  • posted at 6:08 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    Fairiestitches, 'right' or 'wrong' is very often in the eye, mind, and/or heart of the beholder. Surely there are many who believe abortion to be 'wrong,' but have been forced to bend to the will of the people as well as the Supreme Court that ruled that the killing of an unborn human being falls within the right of a woman to determine what happens with her own body. Yet the Constitution protects those who oppose this 'legal' procedure to protest and voice their opinion as well as to do whatever is legal to overturn Roe v. Wade. Likewise with same-sex marriage, it has nothing to do with 'hate,' but rests with the concept that each of us is entitled to determine what we believe to be 'right' or 'wrong.'From what I've read here and elsewhere regarding same-sex marriage, those who have actually 'won' this battle (the war is not yet determined) are fueled by fear of those who simply don't agree with them. Why arent those who prevailed celebrating instead of cowering in fear?

     
  • posted at 5:52 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    fairiestitches - the California 'vote' that will be on the ballot in November will make a Constitutional determination that marriage is specifically between a man and a woman, if the amendment prevails.As it would become 'constitutional' to prohibit same-sex marriages or any other types of official unions other than between a man and a woman, the only recourse for those opposing it would be to either put forth another constitutional amendment to repeal the one that may prevail in November, OR ask the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether or not the new amendment to the California Constitution is unconstitutional according to the U.S. Constitution. 'Prejudice' will not be a determining factor at that point.

     
  • posted at 5:40 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    For you to be a honorable part of this country and believe in what this country stands for you need to remember that your ancestors came here to escape religious persecution and intolerance and to live in a free country! This is a free country and I have faith in the majority of our congressman and political figures that although they may be dishonest and have hidden agendas at times, the original reason they became political figures in the first place was to uphold our honorable constitution and they understand that the ruling was unjust and prejudiced! They will not allow the prejudiced community to prevail against a minority as it is wrong and unconstitutional!

     
  • posted at 5:40 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    I can't believe that all of you sit idly by at home and throw your hateful comments around. DO you not realize that those of you opposing my lifestyle have been conditioned to hate and be intolerant to gay people! Now that some scientific fact for you. Love and marriage with same sex couples has been around even longer than your bible has! It is very natural and normal to fall in love with someone of the same gender! Gay marriage has been documented since the very first writing and pictures of time! It wasnt until recently that intolerance and prejudice against it became the "norm". Intolerance was promoted and forced into our thoughts by the Spanish and the Europeans.

     
  • posted at 5:30 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    Guess what Girard, even if they have another californian vote, democracy will prevail in the fact that it is not possible to overrule gay marriage without being prejudiced. Honestly, the only way to overthrow the ruling would be for people to come up with a way that isnt religious based, and shows some scientific facts that would bring about the fact that our gay marriages are unhealthy and are causing injur to those around us... Its not possible, our relationships are based on love and this ruling is for the greater good!

     
  • posted at 5:25 am on Mon, Jun 16, 2008.

    Posts:

    Wow, so much hate! Why in the world would anyone "see the christian light" ever after reading all your prejudiced religious based meanderings! I thought christians were supposed to be nonjudgemental, loving, and forgiving! How long has it been since all you "christians" have been to church! A simple little heathen like me can see you are all sinning by being judgemental. Is it even a ten commandment that I am not allowed to fall in love with a woman? Not that I even am a christian, however I am very educated on the subject of christianity, and I know that your judgemental hatred and prejudism is against your God's wishes! So lay off the religious comments unless you have an educated scientific political based theory as to why us gays shouldnt marry, especially since most of us gays aren't christian but choose to follow a path of spiritual enlightenment instead! All we do is sit at home and gigle about all the heterosexual christians who want to boycott our weddings!

     
  • posted at 12:17 pm on Sat, Jun 14, 2008.

    Posts:

    I realize that I will receive a great deal of flak for raising this issue, but I just now heard George Takei, of Star Trek fame discussing his upcoming nuptials with his life partner. Contained within his remarks were the sentiments that the fact that he and is now able to marry his partner is as a result of the success of democracy. I cannot argue with him.I wonder, however how he will react 'if' the voters in California decide that they do want a constitutional amendment that restricts marriage to a union between a man and a woman only. Will he (and others) still believe that democracy is working?

     
  • posted at 11:52 am on Sat, Jun 14, 2008.

    Posts:

    I realize that I will receive a great deal of flak for raising this issue, but I just now heard George Takei, of Star Trek fame discussing his upcoming nuptials with his life partner. Contained within his remarks were the sentiments that the fact that he and is now able to marry his partner is as a result of the success of democracy. I cannot argue with him.I wonder, however how he will react 'if' the voters in California decide that they do want a constitutional amendment that restricts marriage to a union between a man and a woman only. Will he (and others) still believe that democracy is working?

     
  • posted at 4:20 pm on Fri, Jun 13, 2008.

    Posts:

    Further, there are many with no religious convictions who also may believe that the concept of same-sex marriage is wrong. Likewise for them our system of legislation provides possible relief for them if they are successful in reversing a law. In fact, this is precisely what occurred in this case - the Supreme Court reversed a law voted on by the majority of voters based upon Constitutional merits. Now it will be again up to the voters to decide in November whether or not the state's Constitution will be amended to define marriage as between a man and a woman. If the vote goes against same-sex marriage I imagine that it will ultimately fall upon the U.S. Supreme Court to make the final determination.It is all very complicated.

     
  • posted at 4:20 pm on Fri, Jun 13, 2008.

    Posts:

    JustTheFacts wrote, 'As much as you try and make it, this is not a religious issue folks.'To the contrary, for many this is very much a religious issue. That is why it is not as cut and dried as many would wish it to be. While same-sex marriage is now the law in California, it does not automatically follow that all will agree with it. There are many laws that run contrary to individual's spiritual beliefs. As Christianity teaches that Christians are to obey the laws of man just as they are to obey the laws of God, such an edict does not preclude them from attempting to change those laws that they believe to be wrong. (Continued . . .)

     
  • posted at 2:23 pm on Fri, Jun 13, 2008.

    Posts:

    Metric - You state that the Bible "is the standard of discerning proper behavior from wrong behavior." So only Christians have the ability to discern wrong from right? As much as you try and make it, this is not a religious issue folks. It's a matter of civil liberties and constitutional rights. You cannot deny any class of people the rights and priveleges enjoyed by those in another class. Defining "marriage" as a union between a man and woman only, again denies one class a right enjoyed by another. 10 points to the first person to tell me what that's called.

     
  • posted at 1:18 pm on Fri, Jun 13, 2008.

    Posts:

    Voter wrote, 'I think someone even compared their unions with dog sex at some point, to great uproar.'It was I who raised an issue regarding the permissibility of a human 'marrying' a dog. It had nothing to do with sex; just an analogy to question just how far society will permit any type of loving relationship to go. I prefaced my remarks that it was a silly analogy and I followed up ad nauseum that it was never intended to be taken as a comparison to any human beings loving one another regardless of gender. In short, it was taken completely out of context, as these things invariably do when the subject is so emotionally hot.I have tried to discuss this issue with respect and dignity and have been treated to the most heinous of verbal assaults. In response I have maintained my self-respect as well as respect for all others with opposing viewpoints no matter how vitriolic their words.

     
  • posted at 12:00 pm on Fri, Jun 13, 2008.

    Posts:

    Voter wrote, 'I think someone even compared their unions with dog sex at some point, to great uproar.'It was I who raised an issue regarding the permissibility of a human 'marrying' a dog. It had nothing to do with sex; just an analogy to question just how far society will permit any type of loving relationship to go. I prefaced my remarks that it was a silly analogy and I followed up ad nauseum that it was never intended to be taken as a comparison to any human beings loving one another regardless of gender. In short, it was taken completely out of context, as these things invariably do when the subject is so emotionally hot.I have tried to discuss this issue with respect and dignity and have been treated to the most heinous of verbal assaults. In response I have maintained my self-respect as well as respect for all others with opposing viewpoints no matter how vitriolic their words.

     
  • posted at 11:54 am on Fri, Jun 13, 2008.

    Posts:

    Voter - It gets increasingly difficult to discuss this matter in any rational manner as it is simply too volatile. And this is not unexpected. Simply look at the vitriol from both sides. After centuries of majority belief that homosexuality is unnatural and/or immoral, why is it not expected that acceptance would be at the very least difficult? This is a very big deal. The fact is the law is on the side of the gay community here. This should be cause for celebration for them. However, it is entirely unreasonable for them to expect automatic acceptance of this idea by those who oppose it let alone expecting the masses to 'embrace' or celebrate such a substantial change.We live in a nation that permits dissent and opposing opinions on virtually every issue. And as we all know from other, less-explosive matters emotions tend to run high. While any violence, threats or other illegal acts should be aggressively prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, I would suggest those who have won this battle to savor it.

     
  • posted at 11:30 am on Fri, Jun 13, 2008.

    Posts:

    Metric Time System wrote, 'Some refuse to accept the fact that one can love their neighbor while not condoning sinful behavior.'As this pertains to those on the far-left, the only neighbors they love are those who agree with them. Holding an opposing idea or stand nearly always draws their ire in the form of hate-filled comments, condemnation and threats. It never ceases to amaze me how it is these people who insist that they are all for 'inclusion' and 'tolerance,' yet cannot include and tolerate anyone unless they march in lockstep with their beliefs.

     
  • posted at 11:10 am on Fri, Jun 13, 2008.

    Posts:

    girard, surely you jest. Go back and read some of the posts from the most conservative posters over the last several weeks regarding the gay marriage issue. Gays are compared to drug addicts and criminals, called immoral, abnormal, and accused of wanting to cause the downfall of society. I think someone even compared their unions with dog sex at some point, to great uproar. Really, I think there is plenty of blame to go around. As a straight person, I can not even imagine how frustrated, angry, and hurt I would feel if someone spoke of my desire to love another person in this way.

     
  • posted at 10:35 am on Fri, Jun 13, 2008.

    Posts:

    Metric Time System wrote, 'Some refuse to accept the fact that one can love their neighbor while not condoning sinful behavior.'As this pertains to those on the far-left, the only neighbors they love are those who agree with them. Holding an opposing idea or stand nearly always draws their ire in the form of hate-filled comments, condemnation and threats. It never ceases to amaze me how it is these people who insist that they are all for 'inclusion' and 'tolerance,' yet cannot include and tolerate anyone unless they march in lockstep with their beliefs.

     
  • posted at 5:22 am on Fri, Jun 13, 2008.

    Posts:

    I also wonder why some are so 'frustrated' over this issue. Didn't those who support the right for gay people to marry win? Aren't the counties ramping up their efforts to begin issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples in just a matter of days? Why the angst? I find this typical of the far-left; that even when they prevail, they somehow 'need' to find something to be miserable about. Such behavior defies logic.My response to such victories is to sit back, smile and relish the success.

     
  • posted at 2:58 am on Fri, Jun 13, 2008.

    Posts:

    Girard: Don't let Rubin's dichotomy of thought cloud this subject. Clearly, a homosexual lifestyle is immoral, according to the Bible. Now if you want to follow the Bible or not, that's another matter, but that is the standard of discerning proper behavior from wrong behavior. It also has nothing to do with hate. It has everything to do with behavior.Some refuse to accept the fact that one can love their neighbor while not condoning sinful behavior.

     
  • posted at 5:00 pm on Thu, Jun 12, 2008.

    Posts:

    Anyone who interprets what I have written to be hateful or self-righteous needs to gain a better grasp on the English language. I have always been very careful to be respectful and dignified with my posts and responses to others even in light of the utterly immature and abhorrent rhetoric directed toward me.If anyone truly believes that I support the beating and kicking of anyone for any reason whatsoever is disingenuous at best. It becomes more and more disheartening that some folks here cannot find a way to communicate without resorting to such juvenile, asinine attacks. Again, this type of response more often than not originates from the far-left fringe, the very group that claims to be all-inclusive and tolerant. The only people that they appear to include and tolerate are those whose ideas are in line with theirs. I think the best way to describe them is to use a term coined in the movie Defending Your Life - Little Brains.

     
  • posted at 4:38 pm on Thu, Jun 12, 2008.

    Posts:

    Again, such fear. I have never insisted that gays are immoral or otherwise. I have certainly stated that there are those who DO believe them to be immoral based upon their own core values. Ignoring the facts won't make it go away.And finally (again), why the fear from people who don't believe that any form of higher power exists? According to many we will all soon become dust bunnies floating beneath someone's bed.There are many laws on the books that cause me to be disgusted and outraged. Yet, the only way I know to change these laws is through the system that has been created to govern this nation. Threats, name-calling, tantrums and the like won't effectuate any change.

     
  • posted at 12:28 pm on Thu, Jun 12, 2008.

    Posts:

    Why the fear? It's not fear, Girard, it's frustration and disgust. The likes of you holding your palms out and squealing that YOU NEVER said gays are immoral, after having done so for months, is sickening.The paper has been littered with your hate and self-righteous judgement every week.And why anyone would be concerned about people inciting more prejudice against the "immoral" gays? Because the names of the innocent gay people who have been beaten and kicked to death, by people who think they are less-than-normal for being gay would fill the phonebook.

     
  • posted at 10:19 am on Thu, Jun 12, 2008.

    Posts:

    In an attempt to put an end to this part of the silliness, I have never accused anyone of being immoral. Yet it cannot be denied that there are many religions that DO deem homosexuality, as well as other activities to be immoral and contrary to their faith.But the question still remains. For those who have no faith in any 'god,' why should they be concerned about what I or anyone else might think? Why all the fear?There are Muslims who characterize me as an 'infidel' and wish me to die a horrible death simply because I do not follow their doctrine. My answer to them is that I simply don't care what they think of me. I have absolutely nothing to fear from them or people like them.

     
  • posted at 10:05 am on Thu, Jun 12, 2008.

    Posts:

    girard74 wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:38 AM:"Any comments by me regarding 'morality' and/or 'immorality' have never been directed at anyone as a personal affront."Well of course.Why would anyone reading blog after blog by you, denouncing gays as immoral, take it as an affront?Yes, an empty bag of an apology is all that is needed before a new round of name calling and judgement passing. Let the Uber-Christianity begin!

     
  • posted at 7:48 am on Thu, Jun 12, 2008.

    Posts:

    Any comments by me regarding 'morality' and/or 'immorality' have never been directed at anyone as a personal affront. When discussing religious matters, as is common on almost every blog, the morality subject arises simply because most religions are based solely upon it.Also, I have never lied about anyone or anything. If I have made mistakes due to faulty research or any other reason I have been swift to retract such errors and provide an apology if one is warranted.On the other hand, the personal attacks and vitriol put forth by others here are fast becoming the norm rather than the exception. While I find these types of discourse to be personally repugnant, I have learned to simply consider the sources and move along accordingly.

     
  • posted at 5:38 am on Thu, Jun 12, 2008.

    Posts:

    Any comments by me regarding 'morality' and/or 'immorality' have never been directed at anyone as a personal affront. When discussing religious matters, as is common on almost every blog, the morality subject arises simply because most religions are based solely upon it.Also, I have never lied about anyone or anything. If I have made mistakes due to faulty research or any other reason I have been swift to retract such errors and provide an apology if one is warranted.On the other hand, the personal attacks and vitriol put forth by others here are fast becoming the norm rather than the exception. While I find these types of discourse to be personally repugnant, I have learned to simply consider the sources and move along accordingly.

     
  • posted at 5:28 am on Thu, Jun 12, 2008.

    Posts:

    Voter - my opinions regarding gay-marriage may very well have its basis in my personal faith. Yet what I've attempted to discuss here is that regardless of one's faith, everyone is permitted to have their opinions about anything without religion always being the primary reason.Your astonishment that I put forth the 'wrong' is 'wrong' argument doesn't make any sense. I found your statement that '[e]veryone who opposes gay marriage does so on religious grounds' to be equally amazing. Do you seriously suggest that there aren't those who simply believe such activities to be 'wrong?' How can you back up such a claim?And you've conveniently taken my discussion regarding the stay granted by the Supreme Court completely out of context. Yet, this is what I've come to expect from folks here who run out of steam in support of their stance.And for those who do not believe in any god, just what is so frightening with someone believing that their 'god' IS their foundation as to issues such as this? Gay marriage is now the law in California! What worries you so much? The only problem now isn't God; it's a potential Constitutional amendment.

     
  • posted at 2:31 am on Thu, Jun 12, 2008.

    Posts:

    girard, of course you have a right to free speech and to protest anything you oppose. No one is suggesting otherwise here. Your unwillingness to admit that opposition to gay marriage is based entirely on acculturated religious dogma is telling. Suggesting that there might be one or more (two?) people who oppose it "just because it is wrong" is the weakest argument you have ever put forth. With no argument other than, "My God says it's wrong," you've been reduced to comparing loving couples seeking commitment to "convicted felons permitted to run free." That's unfair, offensive, and in the past it would have been beneath you to make such a statement.

     
  • posted at 5:19 pm on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Girard, after being called immoral by you innumerable times, I don't care if you respond or not. Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me personally.However, I see no reason to sit idly by while you try to lie your way to some perverse NeoCon Blogosphere victory.

     
  • posted at 1:16 pm on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    What some may know about me (and whether or not they care doesn't matter) is that as I contribute to these blogs and read responses to what I write and to what others write, I take note of those who simply do not warrant any further direct response from me. In fact, I've got a little Post-It note on my desk with five LNS 'names' (so far) to whom I will no longer engage in any type of discourse in spite of any baiting.I've started this little list to remind me of those who advance the idea that the only way they can debate is through the use of sophomoric name-calling, personal attacks, profanity (transparently hidden through the use of characters such as *&%#@) or other comments and/or language that I determine to be beneath contempt.My point is that through the use of these silly tactics used by relatively few people, serious and/or spirited debate is reduced to ludicrous ranting that accomplishes nothing.So, those of you who know who you are you might just want to ignore me from now on. Otherwise, I'll simply ignore you. That's up to you.

     
  • posted at 12:59 pm on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Girard has still never returned to his crack, "Does anyone not believe that this poses a very real problem?"Tell everyone, Jerry, what the real problem is. It would solve the whole situation if you would just share your insight.

     
  • posted at 11:36 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Voter wrote, 'When the California Supreme Court decides a law is unconstitutional, how silly to expect them to issue a stay, so more citizens can be denied their civil rights (in the court's opinion). This is simply ridiculous.'I suspect that when the opposition moved the Court for the stay, they knew for almost a certainty that it would be denied. Yet, stranger things have happened in our judicial system. Many convicted felons are permitted to run free while their appeals are pending thereby allowing them to either re-offend and/or flee the country never to return to serve their time in prison.

     
  • posted at 9:58 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Voter wrote, 'When the California Supreme Court decides a law is unconstitutional, how silly to expect them to issue a stay, so more citizens can be denied their civil rights (in the court's opinion). This is simply ridiculous.'I suspect that when the opposition moved the Court for the stay, they knew for almost a certainty that it would be denied. Yet, stranger things have happened in our judicial system. Many convicted felons are permitted to run free while their appeals are pending thereby allowing them to either re-offend and/or flee the country never to return to serve their time in prison.

     
  • posted at 9:54 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Voter - your statement that '[e]veryone who opposes gay marriage does so on religious grounds,' is without any basis in fact. Just how do you know that there isn't but one person who is against gay marriage simply because he/she thinks it is wrong? I suspect there are many more than that.

     
  • posted at 9:53 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Voter - there is nothing wrong with anyone 'desiring' to have a law to outlaw or permit almost anything - again, peoples' opinions often dictate how they wish the world to be.Yet it the far left that would desire to thwart any 'ideas' that run counter to their vision of America.Here, we have the Constitution that is the ultimate test to determine if any law put forth will stand and be enforceable. In the case of same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court sided with the Constitution to overturn what it deemed to be an illegal law.Just as I would expect from anyone on the wrong side of the decision, there is dissention and protest. Their remedy at this point is to place an amendment on the ballot to change the California Constitution.And regardless of how this is finally resolved, those whose faith dictates that homosexuality is wrong are still within their right to voice their opinion.

     
  • posted at 9:52 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    When the California Supreme Court decides a law is unconstitutional, how silly to expect them to issue a stay, so more citizens can be denied their civil rights (in the court's opinion). This is simply ridiculous.According to a poll released two weeks ago, the majority of California voters are now willing to accept same-sex marriage. Opposition is largely generational, with younger voters overwhelmingly in support of gay marriage and the oldest voters mostly opposed. So, I agree that it looks like gay marriage is here to stay.

     
  • posted at 9:42 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Voter wrote, 'Freedom of religion protects people's right to worship as they choose. It does not give anyone the power to deny basic civil rights to another group. Why is the separation of church and state so difficult to understand?'I don't believe anyone (of reasonable standing) is promoting the denial of 'basic civil rights.' Yes, there are those on the fringe who would 'like' to do just that. Yet, here we have the California Supreme Court that determined the current law to be unconstitutional, reversed the law permitting same-sex marriages to be conducted and went so far as to refuse opponents to this allowance a stay until a constitutional amendment is voted upon in November. It will be interesting to experience the reaction to that vote. Since California is considered an 'Obama' state, I suspect that the gay-marriage issue will reign supreme.People are still entitled to their opinion regardless of whether or not others believe them to be wrong. However, the First Amendment, as it relates to religion exists to deny the government from forcing any religious requirements upon the citizens. Over time it has been opined to cover much more than what was originally intended.

     
  • posted at 9:42 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    girard wrote, "To include all who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds with those on the far-right of the issue is . . . unfair"What is farther right than, "God says it's sinful, so I want a law to make sure you can't"? Everyone who opposes gay marriage does so on religious grounds. Is there a secular reason for denying gay couples the right to marry? If so, I missed it.

     
  • posted at 8:14 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Voter wrote, 'Freedom of religion protects people's right to worship as they choose. It does not give anyone the power to deny basic civil rights to another group. Why is the separation of church and state so difficult to understand?'I don't believe anyone (of reasonable standing) is promoting the denial of 'basic civil rights.' Yes, there are those on the fringe who would 'like' to do just that. Yet, here we have the California Supreme Court that determined the current law to be unconstitutional, reversed the law permitting same-sex marriages to be conducted and went so far as to refuse opponents to this allowance a stay until a constitutional amendment is voted upon in November. It will be interesting to experience the reaction to that vote. Since California is considered an 'Obama' state, I suspect that the gay-marriage issue will reign supreme.People are still entitled to their opinion regardless of whether or not others believe them to be wrong. However, the First Amendment, as it relates to religion exists to deny the government from forcing any religious requirements upon the citizens. Over time it has been opined to cover much more than what was originally intended.

     
  • posted at 7:48 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Freedom of religion protects people's right to worship as they choose. It does not give anyone the power to deny basic civil rights to another group. Why is the separation of church and state so difficult to understand?

     
  • posted at 7:41 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Voter wrote, 'Some press the issue further-- wanting to deny others the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because their version of God forbids an activity which breaks no secular laws, harms no one (according to exhaustive, peer reviewed research), and is not changeable or a choice (according to the AMA and APA).'The 'some' of which you speak are more than likely in equal numbers of the 'some' on the opposition that seek to silence those with differing opinions.Certainly the fringe on both sides somehow gains much of the attention because of their outspoken and outlandish presentation of their views of the world. To include all who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds with those on the far-right of the issue is as unfair as it is to include the more rational folks to the left with those on the far-left. There are distinctions and simply by listening to them it isn't too difficult to identify them and therefore give them the attention they deserve, which is no attention at all.

     
  • posted at 7:37 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Odd how Girard suddenly has nothing more to say on this matter when he's asked to expound upon his convictions, moral and otherwise.

     
  • posted at 6:43 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Somewhere in the debate, I believe the dialogue regarding same-sex marriage has strayed far from the basic issue--civil rights and a desire by fundamentalist believers to legislate religious dogma on a secular society. Certainly, believers have a right to abstain from anything they feel is sinful, and we should respect this. Some press the issue further-- wanting to deny others the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because their version of God forbids an activity which breaks no secular laws, harms no one (according to exhaustive, peer reviewed research), and is not changeable or a choice (according to the AMA and APA).

     
  • posted at 5:24 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Scout asked, 'And where are these well-thought out reasons? I haven't seen them.'While there is an abundance of hate and vitriol here on these blogs, it is mostly advanced by those who demand that others accept the concept of same-sex marriage. A person's deep-seeded faith in God and His expectations of us is without a doubt a well-thought out reason (IMO). Yet, those who do not share in those beliefs are the first to hurl the insults and expletives against not only their opposition to same-sex marriage (and homosexuality in general), but against their basic faith. Clearly this is not the rational behavior expected of a group that has espoused 'tolerance' as their hallmark, is it?

     
  • posted at 5:09 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    G74 wrote: "They have rational, well-thought out reasons for believing this way."And where are these well-thought out reasons? I haven't seen them.

     
  • posted at 5:07 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Jay Dubb wrote, 'My religous beliefs have taught me to love my brothers and sisters. People who claim to be more religous than their neighbors are the ones who quote the bible and become outraged at people excercising their freedoms.'Most Christians won't argue about the command to love one's neighbor, but there are many in the faith who actually use the Bible and its teachings as a guideline by which they live their lives. Clearly homosexuality is forbidden in Christianity; it is considered a 'sin.' However, as with all sin (and we are all sinners, by the way), the Bible teaches us that God hates the sin, but loves the sinner. This is where we need to follow more closely to God's expectations of us.

     
  • posted at 5:02 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Jay Dubb wrote, 'Also people who are mentioning here that gay people choose their lifestyles are mistaken. That has been scientifically proven.'Actually it hasn't been 'proven' at all. There are studies that suggest that homosexuality is something people are born with, just as there are reports in support of the opposite. This general disagreement is partly what sparks further debate on the matter.

     
  • posted at 4:54 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Scout wrote, 'The arguments I read from people who are against it are filled with hate, irrational fear, and prejudice.'Sure, there are those who are fueled by these emotions. There are others, however who truly believe that homosexuality (and any marriage between two homosexuals) is just wrong. They have rational, well-thought out reasons for believing this way. There are those who disagree with their positions who also spew forth 'hate, irrational fear, and prejudice' to support their positions for gay marriage.Are those who vehemently believe that abortion is wrong also limited to 'hate, irrational fear, and prejudice' in support of their opposing views? There are always those on the 'fringe' who get the most attention, but debate on any issue is not always based upon irrational emotions. Both sides need to open their eyes.

     
  • posted at 4:03 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    G74 wrote: As far as why anyone would be against gay marriage, surely you're kidding! Honestly, I have no idea why anyone is against gay marriage. The arguments I read from people who are against it are filled with hate, irrational fear, and prejudice. These same people cite my Christian religion as a justification for their hate which I find annoying because as far as I am concerned they are not acting very Christian at all.

     
  • posted at 3:18 am on Wed, Jun 11, 2008.

    Posts:

    Jay Dubb: regardless of people's actions, right is right and wrong is wrong. It's sad when ones actions are not in alignment with ones words.

     
  • posted at 11:48 pm on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    girard74 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:19 PM:"...shut down people with valid, honest and viable concerns."What might that concern be?Further from Girard:"As far as why anyone would be against gay marriage, surely you're kidding!"Kidding? No. Why should it be assumed anyone is "kidding"? Your implication is clear - that of course people should oppose gay marriage.Why?

     
  • posted at 7:31 pm on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    Legalization of gay marriage in California is a good news for GLBT. One of my friends, who found her another part on the online community BisexualMingle, decided to get married recently. Hope they have a great marriage life.

     
  • posted at 5:12 pm on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    Not really sure about why gays would want to marry.I mean, haven't they suffered enough?!

     
  • posted at 4:27 pm on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    girard74 wrote - "This subject ranks up there with religon and politics" - Two of the most corrupted institutions in these great United States.

     
  • posted at 4:24 pm on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    Yes girard74....this argument is deeply a religous topic. What amazes me is how quickly and strongly people can speak out against their fellow men and women. My religous beliefs have taught me to love my brothers and sisters. People who claim to be more religous than their neighbors are the ones who quote the bible and become outraged at people excercising their freedoms.Also people who are mentioning here that gay people choose their lifestyles are mistaken. That has been scientifically proven.

     
  • posted at 3:14 pm on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    jay dubb - I really didn't mean to imply that you were trying to silence anyone. It is just that the tactic that you mentioned, 'those who complain loudest are typically guilty of committing offenses for which they are doing the complaining,' is often used to shut down people with valid, honest and viable concerns.As far as why anyone would be against gay marriage, surely you're kidding! This subject ranks up there with religion and politics - it's best not to begin an argument because no one will be persuaded one way or the other (ever).

     
  • posted at 3:08 pm on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    True, true. The Constitution is there to protect people against the might & persecution of the majority. I am extremely surprised though how easy it is to amend the California Constitution vs. the US Constitution's amendment process, which was set up to make it hard to change our fundamental rights.

     
  • posted at 2:59 pm on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    Justthefacts: This is not the first time gay marriage was brought before the constitution. 1978. It was decided to allow each state to define "marriage" by voting on its definition. By Calif. not following the supreme court ruling I am afraid that the whole United States will be affected. Either the federal constitution will be ammended or Calif. will have to re-vote and nullify gay marriage. The Gay Rights activists want their marriages to be recognized throughout the country. They need portability, that's why civil unions are troublesome to them. Not all states recognize them, but Marriage is a whole other animal. It is a sanctioned, legal and recognizable union that the whole world will have to accept. Don't think for one minute there isn't an agenda here. It will affect the whole country. Everyone needs to think about it. Does this country want to redefine marriage to include "any" two adults or does it stay with the traditional view of "one man, one woman?" Be careful, anyone wanting to stay with tradition will be labeled a racist bigot. Trust me I know.

     
  • posted at 2:08 pm on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    All this talk about the "vote of the people" to set this straight (no pun intended). When will people realize that you cannot create a law that is discriminatory against a person or party based upon their race, religion, gender or sexual preference. Regardless of what the populace of any State may vote into place, you can't over ride the US Constitution.

     
  • posted at 1:20 pm on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    This is wrong!!!!let the voters decide SJCO will take much heat on this one!!

     
  • posted at 1:16 pm on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    We have been in a committed loving marriage for 34 years. My in-laws are going on 68 years and my parents 62 years. It takes hard work, love, negotiation, forgiveness, patience, etc. It is not easy but it is SO well worth the hard work.If gay couples want to enter into a marriage, it by no means makes a mockery of our commitment. More power to them. Peace out.

     
  • posted at 12:52 pm on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    homosexual marriage is another attack on what marriage is supposed to be but has long been lost. I am so not looking forward to my young kids discovering that reality and it will be soon since homosexuality and the agenda is on everyone's mind and all over the media.

     
  • posted at 12:50 pm on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    There are many reasons for divorce these days. They all include sin, which our society loves. There's soft porn and hard porn everywhere, enticing husbands, annoying wives. There's abortions in marriage, lying, selfishness. Don't tell me the homosexuals are going to get it right!

     
  • posted at 12:19 pm on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    jay dubb - I really didn't mean to imply that you were trying to silence anyone. It is just that the tactic that you mentioned, 'those who complain loudest are typically guilty of committing offenses for which they are doing the complaining,' is often used to shut down people with valid, honest and viable concerns.As far as why anyone would be against gay marriage, surely you're kidding! This subject ranks up there with religion and politics - it's best not to begin an argument because no one will be persuaded one way or the other (ever).

     
  • posted at 12:04 pm on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    girard74 - I am certainly not trying to silence anyone. I have no strong opinion either way on this issue. I am just making a simple point - if one takes a look at the current structure of the typical "American Family", a solid union between a man and a woman ends in divorce 56% of the time. 53% of American children grow up with BOTH biological parents in the household - The lowest figure in the western world.I just do not understand why so many people get so outraged by a same sex marriage.

     
  • posted at 11:36 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    jay dubb wrote, '...the people who yell the loudest are typically the biggest hypocrites.'Making such a claim doesn't necessarily make it true. Yes, there are hypocrites and often they complain against those very things in which they themselves indulge. But attempting to silence those who do not fall into that category by somehow labeling them as such is equally 'typical' of those on the opposing side of any issue.

     
  • posted at 10:38 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    Perhaps if you would all recognize reincarnation (as Jesus also referenced it in the bible), you would know that people are gay because a female spirit came into a male body or vice versa. That's the explanation. Now you can stop wasting energy on others and direct it towards perfecting YOUR life.

     
  • posted at 10:37 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    Wow!! So many comments about the "sacred institution of marriage". Please folks - take a look at the current family statistics. How many couples stay together these days? At my daughters school, out of 20 students in her class, there are only 6 families with the mother and father together at home. What exactly are you trying to protect? America leads the world in divorce rates.Much like the preacher in the mid-west who constantly blasted gays, and was then caught with a male prostitute - the people who yell the loudest are typically the biggest hypocrites.

     
  • posted at 9:47 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    Call it what you want, but a wedding has a female bride and a male groom. Anything else is not a wedding and is not a marriage. All who are not in denial know this. Those choosing to pursue a deviant lifestyle of homosexuality are only fooling themselves, and it is their quest to dismantle the institution of marriage only because it shines a clear light of right and wrong on their aberrant behavior. The light gives clarity is why some love the darkness.

     
  • posted at 8:48 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    A and B. This is very kind, i mean they coud have labeled them: "pitchers and cathers" "on top, on bottom""QB and reciever""dolphin noses & open faced roast beef Sandwiches"Or, they could have said One is Tony Danza as "the boss", and the other could have judith light as "Angela"

     
  • posted at 8:26 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    What a sad day. Gays, who by their own admission, choose to be gay, now demand and WIN, the right to make a mockery out of the sacred instituition of Marriage. A civil union wouldn't suffice. NO, they had to keep pushing their "rights" to express and destroy the holy institution of marriage. Congratulations. I fear for this world, and the judgement that will follow. You are right, we humans are not the judge. But think about the one who actually created marriage and families. How will He judge us for our liberal and preverse ways?

     
  • posted at 8:24 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    I know it is a dying tradition but I wonder which one will take the other's last name. Guess this will also open it so that a man can now take his wife's name. Heard stories in the past that it is quite difficult to do so.

     
  • posted at 8:02 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    DavidD wrote, 'Girard, if the couple can't decide who get to be A and B... then they've got far bigger issues to deal with. :)'Perhaps so, but this new designation applies to ALL couples receiving marriage licenses. Gone are the 'bride' and 'groom' designations that have been in place since practically forever.Does anyone not believe that this poses a very real problem?

     
  • posted at 7:43 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    realty, are you an a or a b?

     
  • posted at 7:37 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    cmd guess you feel you are entitled to throw the first stone? Yes i am. Just remember that this behavior is teaching children bad things. confusion. I am a father marriage to a woman and have a little girl. What should i say to her when she asks me about seeing two women getting married. Also the father's role in a marriage is to be the role model for someone one day to be my daugther's Husband. oh, i did get married in a church the right way. I would never had done a pre-nupt.

     
  • posted at 7:30 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    Girard, if the couple can't decide who get to be A and B... then they've got far bigger issues to deal with. :)

     
  • posted at 7:09 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    Marzo, guess you feel you are entitled to throw the first stone? Even my priest said on Sunday that he is a sinner. We all sin in our own ways, but it is not up to us to judge. Free will is there for a reason and whether or not it really is a sin or a bigger sin than some of the skeltons hiding in your closet, we'll know one day. Until then, congrats to those who are finally be acknowledged for the loving human beings they are and welcome to the legal ramifications marriage brings with it. Get yourself a pre-nupt!

     
  • posted at 6:41 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    when it comes down to it it's a matter of choice. Those people who claim that they are gay be just choosing to be so. just like people who turn to crime or drugs do it because they choose it. It will never be accepted in society as normal because it is abnormal. Even in the bible the relationship is between a man and a woman. In the end they will pay for choosing to sin and God will judge them.

     
  • posted at 6:17 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    Oooops, I meant 'county' clerk, not 'country.'

     
  • posted at 6:16 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    Oh, I can see the problems that will certainly arise from 'A' and 'B' designations.Just who will be designated in the 'superior' 'A' position and who will volunteer to be relegated to the more 'subservient' 'B' slot? Or will it be up to some minimum-wage country clerk to decide who goes first?This ain't over yet.

     
  • posted at 4:08 am on Tue, Jun 10, 2008.

    Posts:

    Best wishes to all those getting married!

     
Readers Choice Awards 2014

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Featured Events

CREATE AN EVENT

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists